[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Redux

• From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
• To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
• Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:34:47 +0100

Well I would be happy that you elaborate on this

In the mean time, I will spot some points that have been let aside by Mike Kay

The implication of JSON beeing a subset of Javascript is to be PART OF
javascript

We see recently here and there some attemps to integrate XML as first
class citizen to language. Interestingly right before JSON, E4X was
the most promising one (there is several with Java and LINQ is a
notable one with Dot Net)

I think that's an interesting topic too: Programmers community wants
close integration. Information/data community wants something that
could work standalone : can we fit both needs ?

That's where something like Oslo is interesting

The huge XML ecosystem stack is a nightmare to all newcomer : most of
time people trip over something in one layer and blame an other one.
That's life. But in the XML arena, when we try to explain to the user
the source of the problem (is it XML, or Infoset, or Namespaces or XDM
or XSLT or XML Schema or PSVI or DOM or Java or HTTP or Sun's Xerces
or UTF-8 or media-type  and so forth) people start to becoming nuts

Some of us took the red pill, but do we have to impose everyone to take it ?

Error recovering strategy can hide part of the problem and indeed it's
HARD (and I agree that it's impressive how many smart people think
that it should be easy)

It definitely explains also why people find HTML5 so interesting : it
try to synthetize all the spec and clarifies the connection with the
other (remember the one gigantic spec of WhatWG times)

So here is my take : the separated spec should be written as if they
were written in one block and I must admit that in the XML ecosystem
we are badly far from that at this time

Xmlizer
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> mozer scripsit:
>
>> Hence why not bite the bullet and go for something like Oslo (M)
>
> It's just awful complicated.
>
> --
> Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your    John Cowan
> ear.  However, I would suggest you wash your    cowan@ccil.org
> hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>        --gadicath
>

• References:
  • XML Redux
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>